Should "In God We Trust" Be Taken Off Of US Currency? What Would Follow?

Yes - because if you and your brethren want to suppress the human race (here are a couple of MANY examples: gay rights, stem cell research) and keep the human race from progressing, then I highly suggest you and the rest of your brethren prove w/o a shadow of a doubt, that this god exists. And I could give a dam about your 'personal experience'. 'personal experience' means NOTHING.

Once again, if you think a motto on a dollar bill suppresses people, then you simply cannot see the bigger picture.

 

Too many assumptions in the above, like: 'If it stated "no" religion then the USA would be Communist'.

Also, it matters not one iota what percentage of the US Population want something, it only matters what the constitution says. If you don’t like it, you are free to leave the US.

 

Above is a 50 cent piece from 1836...Can someone point the motto 'in god we trust' on the coin................

Guess what, you wont find it. Why? Because this motto wasn’t put on the coins until AFTER the civil war.

The replacement motto: "In God We Trust:"

This country survived w/o this motto on its money for the first 70ish years of making coins, I see no reason why we can't survive w/o it again

 

When Americans thought that God was a part of the society, horrible things happened to human beings. So, what would the behavior be like if there was no moral compus? Germany was the same. The currency is only one example. If "In God We Trust" were taken off of the currency, it would signify the mental state of the collective people.

 

What survived? The country was ripped in two by a civil war, an economic war. Southerners are still saying the South will rise again. (that is not relevant). The first point is relevant. (division )

 

I'm against suppression and oppression that dictators of all creeds, beliefs, and opinions stand for, atheist or not. I'm not against stem cell research. I support equal rights for all, I'm tired of this women's rights or gay rights and so on. Equality for all is all I am for. I'm not against progress or change, but should temper action with wisdom and ensure that it is not some knee jerk reaction. Progress for the sake of progress is not always a good thing.

Atheists just don't get the concept of faith do you. I'm not going to correct your ignorance because you refuse to see the miracle of God around you.

This "bigger picture" bull(*)(*)(*)(*) proves nothing and until you can prove how it oppresses you then you're just a little whiny child. Are you forced to believe? Are you forced to go to church? Are you forced to read scripture? Oh, I get it, you see something you don't agree with and want it removed, but not everyone agrees with you so you want to bully others around.

Why is your lack to believe supposed to be given greater consideration than my faith?

 

I don't think it matters what is written on money. It doesn't make society more moral.

Also, I think publican workers should wear or advertise whatever they want.

 

I hear a lot of **I** this or **I** that. But yet Bush Jr would allow federal funding for stem cell research based off his religious beliefs, and the ADF (A christian group of lawyers head quartered in Phoenix AZ) was able to get prop 8 on the ballot in California.

WHAT ABOUT YOUR BRETHERAN????????????????????????????????????????????

**I** **I**

This is actually a typical response actually...Push the blame away from the individual..Sickening really.

What I am forced to do is listen to my dad complain about his diabetes every-time I see him. And what really burns me up, is we lost 8 years of research because of Bush. MILLIONS of Americans can benefit from stem-cell research. But we cant be 'playing god' right?

What I am forces to see is gay people in California that cant get married because a CHRISTIAN group of lawyers got prop 8 on or ballot, and what is even worse, is they are not even IN CALIFORNIA!

Keep looking at the **I**, and you will NEVER see the big picture.

 

Did they force the majority of the people to vote for it as well?

I'm guessing you mean "Brethren"? Who are referring to?

How am I pushing the blame away from the individual?

All I'm hearing is whining and scapegoating.

The people who voted into law were from California.

 

Yes, part of the society, not part of the government. The question is whether what is printed on the money is part of government or not. I'm not sure there is a right answer (or alternatively, both answers could be right). I think the fundamental issue is that the US Constitution is a document written in natural language being used as a legal one (not to disparage it in any way, just making a raw statement of fact).

Not necessarily. The people responsible for such things could simply decide to change what is printed on the money (maybe to avoid anyone having to make the ruling on it's constitutionality at all).

Who said anything about taking God out of society? We're talking about words on bits of paper and lumps of metal.

Why would any of these things automatically come about as a result of changing the design of your money? As you pointed out, the Constitution refers to free exercise of religion too, so much of that is fundamentally protected.

It's true that some people arguing against "In God We Trust" being on money would also like to see some of these other changes but equally, some of the people strongly supporting the phrase would too (especially the parts about "religious" covering and Muslims praying in public). None of it is directly linked in any way though.

You'd all follow exactly the same thing you follow now (God or otherwise). You've still not established how or why anything else would automatically change were the phrase removed from your money.

 

So, if it doesn't matter where does the standard go. Do you expect people to show the standard of a moral direction.

 

It's wrong, actually. What we want is a non-partisan government.

 

I think it should definitely be removed from currency.

I don't know much about how money is physically made, but I can't see it being too difficult or expensive to remove it, and replace it with a meaningful slogan, for example the fore mentioned "E Pluribus Unum".

Would it change anything? No. But it would show that our country as a whole is trying to be secular, like we are supposed to be. And accommodating all religious sects, and not just the Christian majority.

 

Actually as a Christian I don't feel accommodated by God's name being put on a stinky piece of paper that is the symbol of materialistic greed. Seeing that Jesus told us to store up treasures in heaven rather than earth and that we're told not to take the name of the LORD our God in vain, I even find it somehow blasphemous.

 

I might agree that it should be removed, but the real barrier here is a ruling by the Supreme Court that found that ceremonial deism is mere historical ritual.

I always found this ruling to be arbitrary and disappointing, but it could have been a lot worse. So I guess I can live with a few habits that have no meaning outside of the traditional observance.

 

Agreed. (10 char)

 

Any monotheistic one. It specifically denies paganism, polytheism, henotheism, and non-theistic religions.

 

As an atheist I think it is stupid this was ever put on the coin in the first place.

As a realist- I don't care. Doesn't offend me, doesn't affect me- and trying to change it would just stir up unnecessary animosity.

So no- leave it on.

 

From government? (*)(*)(*)(*) straight. And I'm not even an atheist.

 

Is being an Athieists a good reason for saying it's not a good idea? Do you have any notions a bit more profound. Could your apathy be the reason for it's necessary presence.

You can't prove anything either. Can you?

 

No he can't. The stuff coming out of his and his mouth are the same. Sh!t.

 

"Why would any of these things automatically come about as a result of changing the design of your money? As you pointed out, the Constitution refers to free exercise of religion too, so much of that is fundamentally protected.

It's true that some people arguing against "In God We Trust" being on money would also like to see some of these other changes but equally, some of the people strongly supporting the phrase would too (especially the parts about "religious" covering and Muslims praying in public). None of it is directly linked in any way though."
------------------------

My only concern with thinking that there are enough people to keep religious rights intact would be giving humans to much credit. When a human being has in his or her head that they have the right to deprive another, they succeed.
All they need is the power and intent. Two examples.

First, George Busch "W", along with Dick Cheney made changes to laws to serve their political agenda. George W. Busch and Dick Cheney had authority even Congress did not question.

Adolf Hitler created a new currency when he came to power. He injected the German society with his concept of religious history. They bought into it. Some extremist murder in the name of their "almighty." Hitler murdered in the name of God.

I say this to because you can not rely on fickle humans.

 

Yes. We are talking about a piece of paper.

American society is represented by the paper. Standards and morals, evils, good action , and wealth are the society. The world knows the United States of America by it's wealth. People want to live in America because of a presumed morality behind the laws. Justice and peace.

The recent global recession angered other countries for several reasons. One, America held a moral standard. When other countries realized that the USA was trying sell debt packaged as mystery bonds, America was accused of being frauds. America was not living up to their moral principles.

I am trying to say that the words are saying more then "In God We Trust.". The words also say, you can trust us. In a metaphoric way. The words are for other countries that have God in front.

 

I believe it should be taken off of our currently simply because the United States has so many immoral laws.

 

Now that's something I haven't considered! Maybe we should provide proof that we believe in God, before claiming that we do? Are we making God look bad?